My driving instructor texted me at 2pm to tell me he couldn't make our lesson at 2.30pm because he was having "trouble with the car".
My driving instructor informed me during my last lesson that he didn't feel great so he was going to cancel the rest of his lessons for the day. Such are the perks of being self-employed, he noted.
My driving instructor is no longer my driving instructor.
Monday, September 8, 2008
Thursday, September 4, 2008
Review or not review, that is the question
As you may or may not know, I am a PhD student. This involves carrying out research and, when you have some interesting findings, writing papers. These papers are submitted to conferences with a view to having them published and presenting the work to your peers.
Most if not all of these conferences have a reviewing process in which relevant experienced researchers in the field form a programme committee. They then anonymously review the submitted papers and either recommend a given paper to be accepted or rejected. Normally, a review consists of a mark from 1-5 on a number of criteria such as "Technical Correctness", "Novelty", "Significance" etc. followed by specific comments from the reviewer justifying their decision.
I recently submitted two papers to a conference and a workshop and both were rejected. Far from being bitter, I understand not everyone's papers can be accepted. What I am extremely unhappy about, however, is the quality of the reviews I received.
In general, the comments in these reviews summarise the paper and highlight specific issues the reviewer had. My gripe is with the lack of consistency in this process across different reviewers and conferences. In my opinion, if a reviewer is going to reject a paper from the conference, the review should contain everything the paper needs to change/include -- in the reviewer's expert opinion -- in order to reach the publication standard. The idea behind this is that the researcher who has had their work rejected can take these comments on board, improve their paper and resubmit it to another conference down the line. The papers I had rejected lacked anything remotely approaching this.
One review was only about five lines long and did nothing but repeat my conclusions. The other reviewer obviously had some sort of personal gripe with my approach and borderline insulted me in his comments. Firstly, I only got two reviews and this was a large international conference. If I am going to spend months doing work and decide to submit it to your conference, the least you can do is oblige me with 3 reviews as is standard for conferences of this size. But more importantly, or frustratingly, there was absolutely nothing constructive I could take from the reviews to incorporate into my paper. So I'm left with a paper that was rejected by supposed experts and I'm none the wiser and to what to do with it so that it's not rejected the next time I submit it somewhere.
I understand the reviewing is a time consuming process, especially for larger conferences, but there really needs to be some sort of quality control. I'm not suggesting a review of the reviews or anything preposterous like that (although I am aware of some instances of programme chairs returning reviews to reviewers asking them for more substantial and useful reviews) but I think there are certainly some measures than can be taken.
Rather than present the reviewer with an unrestricted box in which to place comments, they could be more directed. If they are going to accept a paper, they can be asked to leave specific comments as to how the final paper can be improved. More importantly still, if they are going to reject a paper they should be asked to explain exactly what the paper needs to be brought up to standard. It's the least the person who submitted the paper deserves. Also, the 1-5 system of marking specific criteria can be improved. If as a reviewer you give a mark of 3 for "Clarity" you should have to explain why it wasn't a 5 -- what was unclear and how can you make it clearer. Why wouldn't you anyway? Laziness? Lack of motivation? If you don't really want to review, don't agree to be on the programme committee. It's a responsibility, not just another item to add to the "Professional Activites" section on your website/CV.
Another interesting approach is currently being adopted by one of the major conferences in my field. That is, the work is reviewed and returned to the submitter. They then have a few days to take on board the comments and resubmit the paper to the same reviewers who then decide whether the relevant changes have brought the paper to acceptable standard. This level of interaction between the reviews and the submitter is very beneficial. It will only lead to a higher quality conference proceedings and, for those who had work rejected, a justified rejection with the consolation of a clearer picture as to how to proceed. This all make take a little more time and effort on everyone's part but that shouldn't be an issue. The issue should be the betterment of the quality of research carried out on the field.
Now you may see these as the views of a young naive researcher who has yet to become disillusioned with the whole process, but I challenge you tell me something about my suggestions that wouldn't benefit anybody.
Most if not all of these conferences have a reviewing process in which relevant experienced researchers in the field form a programme committee. They then anonymously review the submitted papers and either recommend a given paper to be accepted or rejected. Normally, a review consists of a mark from 1-5 on a number of criteria such as "Technical Correctness", "Novelty", "Significance" etc. followed by specific comments from the reviewer justifying their decision.
I recently submitted two papers to a conference and a workshop and both were rejected. Far from being bitter, I understand not everyone's papers can be accepted. What I am extremely unhappy about, however, is the quality of the reviews I received.
In general, the comments in these reviews summarise the paper and highlight specific issues the reviewer had. My gripe is with the lack of consistency in this process across different reviewers and conferences. In my opinion, if a reviewer is going to reject a paper from the conference, the review should contain everything the paper needs to change/include -- in the reviewer's expert opinion -- in order to reach the publication standard. The idea behind this is that the researcher who has had their work rejected can take these comments on board, improve their paper and resubmit it to another conference down the line. The papers I had rejected lacked anything remotely approaching this.
One review was only about five lines long and did nothing but repeat my conclusions. The other reviewer obviously had some sort of personal gripe with my approach and borderline insulted me in his comments. Firstly, I only got two reviews and this was a large international conference. If I am going to spend months doing work and decide to submit it to your conference, the least you can do is oblige me with 3 reviews as is standard for conferences of this size. But more importantly, or frustratingly, there was absolutely nothing constructive I could take from the reviews to incorporate into my paper. So I'm left with a paper that was rejected by supposed experts and I'm none the wiser and to what to do with it so that it's not rejected the next time I submit it somewhere.
I understand the reviewing is a time consuming process, especially for larger conferences, but there really needs to be some sort of quality control. I'm not suggesting a review of the reviews or anything preposterous like that (although I am aware of some instances of programme chairs returning reviews to reviewers asking them for more substantial and useful reviews) but I think there are certainly some measures than can be taken.
Rather than present the reviewer with an unrestricted box in which to place comments, they could be more directed. If they are going to accept a paper, they can be asked to leave specific comments as to how the final paper can be improved. More importantly still, if they are going to reject a paper they should be asked to explain exactly what the paper needs to be brought up to standard. It's the least the person who submitted the paper deserves. Also, the 1-5 system of marking specific criteria can be improved. If as a reviewer you give a mark of 3 for "Clarity" you should have to explain why it wasn't a 5 -- what was unclear and how can you make it clearer. Why wouldn't you anyway? Laziness? Lack of motivation? If you don't really want to review, don't agree to be on the programme committee. It's a responsibility, not just another item to add to the "Professional Activites" section on your website/CV.
Another interesting approach is currently being adopted by one of the major conferences in my field. That is, the work is reviewed and returned to the submitter. They then have a few days to take on board the comments and resubmit the paper to the same reviewers who then decide whether the relevant changes have brought the paper to acceptable standard. This level of interaction between the reviews and the submitter is very beneficial. It will only lead to a higher quality conference proceedings and, for those who had work rejected, a justified rejection with the consolation of a clearer picture as to how to proceed. This all make take a little more time and effort on everyone's part but that shouldn't be an issue. The issue should be the betterment of the quality of research carried out on the field.
Now you may see these as the views of a young naive researcher who has yet to become disillusioned with the whole process, but I challenge you tell me something about my suggestions that wouldn't benefit anybody.
Wednesday, September 3, 2008
Everything is Great
Well, it's been a while... (this is how my last post began also)
My friend Dónall -- who you may remember from such blog posts as Dónallism and Sweeping statement of the century -- tells me that I moan a lot. He used this very blog as a case in point. We looked back through my previous 22 posts and it seems as though I was voicing my displeasure (moaning) about something or other in 11 of them. So the purpose of this post is to tilt the scale in favour of the non-moaning posts.
So let me not moan about a few things:
WOE IS ME
52:48
My friend Dónall -- who you may remember from such blog posts as Dónallism and Sweeping statement of the century -- tells me that I moan a lot. He used this very blog as a case in point. We looked back through my previous 22 posts and it seems as though I was voicing my displeasure (moaning) about something or other in 11 of them. So the purpose of this post is to tilt the scale in favour of the non-moaning posts.
So let me not moan about a few things:
- The weather in Spain was lovely when I was there on holidays
- I'm going to Hawai'i in October
- We may not have great summers in Ireland but at least the winters are mild
- I got a nice new pair of DC Shoes
- ...
- ...arghhh...
- ...aaarrgghh...*incredible hulk moment*...*inner monster escapes*...ah who am I kidding
- It was too bloody hot in Spain
- What a SHIT summer we've had here and now more of the same 'til next April
- My reviews for AMTA in Hawai'i were really crappy and I should have had 2 more papers at it (more on this in an upcoming post)
- It's really hard to work when next door is a fucking construction site, the dust from which is dirtying my nice new DC Shoes
WOE IS ME
52:48
Saturday, June 21, 2008
God save the... tripe
Wow - it's been a while. Here's something I read that really irked me.
On the BBC Sports website there is a feature -- about the European football championships -- whos headline reads:
Is Europe pining for absent England?
The sub-headline is:
It's a shame England aren't here
They don't mean from a sporting perspective. They seem to believe all the other supporters and locals are missing the English fan's presence! I don't even really want to start cos I could just go on and on and on. This is pretty typical of the BBC and it's not the first time I've posted something to this effect.
Shall I tell them the answer is "no" or do you want to?
On the BBC Sports website there is a feature -- about the European football championships -- whos headline reads:
Is Europe pining for absent England?
The sub-headline is:
It's a shame England aren't here
They don't mean from a sporting perspective. They seem to believe all the other supporters and locals are missing the English fan's presence! I don't even really want to start cos I could just go on and on and on. This is pretty typical of the BBC and it's not the first time I've posted something to this effect.
Shall I tell them the answer is "no" or do you want to?
Wednesday, March 19, 2008
The Fair City
What the fuck is wrong with Dublin?!
Murder inquiry into Blanchardstown death
Tourist loses finger on St Patrick's Day
St Patrick's Day violence in Finglas
Welcome to Battlefield Drive, where drunken louts run riot
Pipebomb discovered in Dublin suburb
Two held over O'Connell St Incident
Taoiseach appeals over Drimnagh killings
Fatal stabbings doubled in 2007
Murder inquiry into Blanchardstown death
Tourist loses finger on St Patrick's Day
St Patrick's Day violence in Finglas
Welcome to Battlefield Drive, where drunken louts run riot
Pipebomb discovered in Dublin suburb
Two held over O'Connell St Incident
Taoiseach appeals over Drimnagh killings
Fatal stabbings doubled in 2007
Tuesday, March 11, 2008
Dónallism
Dónall and I were in Luxembourg and he told some people there rather matter-of-factly that Ireland was quite a small country.
Friday, March 7, 2008
Oh should I?
Should have gone to SpecSavers
This is the advertising slogan of the opticians SpecSavers. I do goto SpecSavers. I got my last prescription, pair of glasses and box of contacts there. So when I needed new contacts, I went back.
I went to the Grafton St. branch of a Thursday evening and asked for a new box. They asked me if I had my prescription with them and I said I had. So the lady proceeded to a massive filing cabinet (!!) to look for my prescription. I informed her that she probably wouldn't find it in there as I got my prescription in the Henry St. She then told me that she wouldn't be able to give me new contacts because the Henry St. branch was closed and she couldn't call them to have them fax me over a copy of my prescription. I asked her could she not look it up on their system and she said they don't have a system! They only have physical copies of patient/customer details!!! How fucking archaic is that?! As I believe it's optician's policy not to give lenses without a prescription even though I clearly have been there before, I had my prescription in the form of the box from my previous set of lenses (bog standard disposable ones), I left empty handed. I went to this branch because it was open late. Apparently the Henry St. one never opens late which I guess leaves me in a bit of a pickle.
So to SpecSavers I say 1) stop living in the long long ago and get yourself some sort of electronic customer database and 2) alter your misleading advertising slogan. I leave a suggestion below.
Should have gone to SpecSavers*
*but once you go make sure you always go back to the same branch
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
